Letters for June 23, 2011

Facts about venoplasty

Re “Montel’s fight” by Nick Miller (SN&R Frontlines, June 16):

I’m married to Jeff Beal, the first American treated for CCSVI in 2009. I took the Italian research to Stanford University, where my husband was diagnosed and treated by the doctor Montel Williams is now seeing. I wanted to clarify a bit of information for you for your story.

Venoplasty is an FDA-approved procedure. My husband’s venoplasty was covered by his medical insurance, since his jugular veins were occluded over 50 percent. This is done for vascular patients around the world. The part that is “controversial” is that these venous occlusions had not been noted in people with multiple sclerosis until 2008.

My husband is now two years past his venoplasty, with no MS progression or relapses. He is able to work full days as a film and TV composer (www.jeffbeal.com).

The nonprofit I helped establish is CCSVI Alliance (www.ccsvi.org). It might be helpful for your readers to check out this site, since we have unbiased information and research written by medical professionals.

It’s important that we get the right info out to people with multiple sclerosis!

Joan Beal
via email

Editor’s note: As Ms. Beal notes, in last week’s news feature on Montel Williams (“Montel’s fight,” by Nick Miller, SN&R Frontlines, June 16), the writer inaccurately described the chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CSVI) surgery procedure. It has been corrected online.

Cannabis OK with him

Re “Advertisements” (SN&R, June 16):

I know there are readers of your paper who resent your accepting ads from the wellness organizations.

Thanks for accepting their ads. Even though I do not have to use their products, I appreciate that they help to pay for a great paper that I enjoy.

James Sakauye

Businesses aren’t police

Re “Second Saturday’s second chance” by Raheem F. Hosseini (SN&R Frontlines, June 9):

The comment that “local businesses are more interested in making money than protecting [customers]” is just as it should be. They are business concerns, not law enforcement.

Would you expect the Sears refrigerator salesman to separate two shooters going at it in the parking lot? Of course not. And if he did run out there with the requisite tools in hand, the same complainants would decry that Sears had no business dispatching “armed thugs” to the scene to interfere with “peaceful” gang activities and shame on them. (That’s over the top, but you can just imagine that kind of reaction, can’t you?)

Obviously, law enforcement in this or any other venue is the responsibility of the government. Situations where citizens gather more than usual requires that they staff accordingly. The excuse of scarce funding won’t wash. The citizens vote the degree of city “vibrancy” they wish by electing officials that will or will not tax to provide the necessary policing that is needed. Everything’s a trade-off, and if we aren’t willing to pay, then no event should be permitted, at least until times get better.

Perhaps it’s just a matter of proper signage: “No murders here to corner” or “Manslaught 2:00-3:00 AM, M-F only except holidays,” or even “Get weapons discharge ticket at machine and tape to gun barrel.”

Lee Whitehead

Parking is only part of the arena joke

Re “No arena parking?” by Maxwell McKee (SN&R Beats, June 9):

The [David] Taylor-[Mayor Kevin] Johnson “feasibility study” is a slipshod hurry-up presentation that reflects some very shallow thoughts about how an arena would fit in with the overall rail-yard development. Plunking the arena down at the site of the intermodal transit hub, which I assume has at least the tacit approval of the mayor, just doesn’t make sense.

Then, as a topper, no provision is made for parking. Just where do Taylor and the mayor think people are going to park? Or did they even think about parking? I can hardly wait to see how they plan to finance the arena, and by that I mean the real total cost, not the plugged-in $387 million. This whole process has turned into one big bad joke.

James G. Updegraff

It’s the execs’ salaries!

Re “A real look at reform” (SN&R Editorial, June 9):

[California Employers Association executive] appointments in some state agencies had salaries that rose almost 300 percent. One CEA in forestry went from a salary of $144K/year to $412K/year from 2009 to 2010. That is what is bankrupting CalPERS!

Thomas M. Bertsch

Cheaper ways to pamper pets

Re “Sac pet$” by Rachel Leibrock (SN&R Feature, June 2):

I discovered recently that if you’re on a shoestring budget, you can literally give your cats a shoestring to play with and they can have just as much fun as they would with that expensive toy you went out of your way to get for them. All you have to do is dangle it in front of them and they’ll often go nuts.

Sometimes I’ll wrap it around the tail of our youngest and watch her spin around like a whirling dervish in her attempt to grab it. Good exercise for her and a big laugh for us!

Wayne Chapman

Sprawl in somebody else’s neighborhood

Re “Walk the Greenline” by Jeff vonKaenel (SN&R Greenlight, June 2) and “A village, green” by Jonathan Mendick, SN&R Eco-Hit):

The irony was not lost on readers of the June 2 issue when, on page 14, SN&R decried the loss of Sacramento farmland to urban development, yet on the immediate facing page lauded the obliteration of hundreds of acres of prime agricultural space in Davis to accommodate still more suburban sprawl.

Does this two-facedness indicate that SN&R’s self-professed eco-consciousness is nothing more than NIMBY hypocrisy? Or does it simply reflect shoddy editorial oversight, in which the left hand doesn’t read what the right hand is writing?

Curtis Fritz